Additional Markings will address issues of religious, cultural, literary, and political interest. The title reflects a continuation of the author's award winning column in the Covenant Companion magazine. It also honors the memory of Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold who sought in his famous journal Markings to integrate his personal life, his work on behalf of humanity, and his spiritual life. This blog will explore how those aspects of human life may be held together and nourished.

Friday, March 23, 2012

The Problem with Biblical Scholarship

I have labored in the vineyards of
biblical scholarship most of my adult life.I began serious study of the Bible at a fundamentalist Bible School,
moved on to a conservative Evangelical theological seminary and earned my
doctorate at a major research university.I have preached, taught and written about the Bible as the pastor of a
local church, the editor of a denominational magazine, and as a seminary professor.I have a great deal of respect for the craft
and skill of many of my colleagues in biblical scholarship.But I also have problems with the way the
field has done its business.I was
reminded of my difficulties while listening to a paper at the Society of
Biblical Literature’s Annual Meeting last November.While giving a paper on the gospels a young
scholar complained bitterly about the incursion of “theology” into the study
and interpretation of the gospels.This
is a far from uncommon complaint.In
fact, I am convinced that it would be as shocking for many at that giant academic
nerd fest we call AAR/SBL for a speaker to draw an implication as it would be
for him to disrobe on the platform.

The problem with this is that it
assumes a kind of scholarly objectivity that simply doesn’t exist.Biblical scholarship (and it is not alone)
has suffered from an illusion that religious, cultural, and scientific biases
can be put aside for the sake of a disinterested reading of the text.But this is as likely as my being
disinterested when the Chicago Bears are playing a football game.The scholar complaining about the incursions
of “theology” into the interpretation of the text did nothing so much as
indicate the depth of his naiveté.Marilynne
Robinson, in a pair of essays on Moses and the Torah in her wonderful book When I Was a Child I Read Books, reminds
us that a good deal of 19th century biblical scholarship was
corrupted by (particularly) German nationalism, (mostly) atheistic rationalism,
and pervasive anti-Semitism.The popular
division of the Pentateuch into documents JEDP by Julius Wellhausen, for
example, was not rooted in scientific objectivity or literary expertise but in
specious developmental views of the idea of God in ancient Judaism that
amounted, in the end, to a denigration of Judaism itself.Similarly, the atomistic approach to the historicity
of sayings and incidents in the Gospels has very little either historically or
literarily to recommend it.All too
often what is deemed “historical” is what is either congenial to the author or embarrassing
to his or her opponents.Modern Biblical
scholarship has, in other words, frequently been a tool of the critics of both
traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity.

This is not to say there are not
thoroughly Christian scholars who are doing very careful and thoughtful work on
historical questions related to the biblical text.But their researches, for example, into the
Gospels are not based on simplistic and contradictory “criteria” intended to
make decisions on historicity easier.Such criteria are designed, in the end, to produce as few authentic
words and actions of Jesus as possible.The founders of the Jesus Seminar, for example, were not simply engaging
in dispassionate investigation of the gospels when they used such criteria.They were quite openly using the criteria to
attack “fundamentalist” Christian readings they found uncongenial.

Having said this, I also have little
use for Evangelical scholars who, having decided on the basis of their view of
the Bible that all the sayings and stories in the Bible are accurate and
historical, use the tools of critical research to “prove” their
historicity.They would be more honest
to acknowledge their presupposition and leave off the specious “proofs”.This approach is as dishonest in its own way
as the tendentious decisions of the Jesus Seminar.I, for one, am not convinced that everything
in the Bible has to be historically accurate for it to be the Word of God.But that is for another blog.Responsible scholarship acknowledges its biases,
blind spots, and commitments and does not pretend a nonexistent
objectivity.It submits its views to a
diverse community for correction and assessment with humility and
thankfulness.Even when it does its scholarship
for the church it does it with critical integrity as well as enduring love.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

About Me

I am currently Senior Professor of Theological Studies and formerly President and Dean of North Park Theological Seminary. I teach New Testament and Theology. I have wide interests including theology, literature, politics and culture. I have served as a pastor as well as teacher and administrator.